thetattler

I'm happy for the little boy and all, but what is the message of this article? That if you have an illegally unfenced swimming pool, you can essentially get off without punishment because your homeowners insurance will still somehow cover it. I don't see the name of their insurance provider listed in the article, but if I were also a client of that company, I'd be extremely annoyed! Why should the other clients' premiums cover these people when they knowingly maintained an unsafe condition in their home?

Sorry, I should've specified in my post that the deleted comments I was referring to were those that directly *named* Mr. Leddy and disagreed with him. In an earlier post, all I said was that I thought Mr. Leddy's editorial was wrong because there was no indication whatsoever that this girl was abused at home. On the contrary, it seems she came from a loving and concerned family. Obviously, things may be different behind closed doors, but there is no evidence of that. Anyway, unless there's someone out there who really hates this family and wants people to think she is abused, the only person who would have found my comment inappropriate or offensive is Mr. Leddy himself.

Hmmm it seems that most of the comments that directly criticized Mr. Leddy's viewpoint this morning were taken down. That's odd. Allow me to paraphrase what I said earlier.

There were no indications that this girl was abused. If there were, then she would not have been returned IMMEDIATELY to her parents. If the NYPD thought she was being abused, they would've called in ACS to determine if it was safe to return her home. The reality is that the very people Mr. Leddy is criticizing for their "ignorance" are the people who were expressing opinions that were based on the information that the Advance was presenting them. It appears to be Mr. Leddy who is jumping to conclusions by stating what *may* have led her to run away, when there is no indication of abuse right now. I find THAT to be insensitive and unfair to her parents.

Why, oh why, do I have to spell everything out for you? His approval rating is like 67% NOW, over a year after he "shoved this thing down the throats of NYS residents". My point was that, if gay marriage was going to be his undoing, don't you think it would've negatively affected his approval rating already?!?!?! Come on, ACon, you and I may disagree, but you're smarter than THAT!

Bend in the road? It's a small curve. If you can't negotiate THAT curve without crashing into a pole, you shouldn't have a license let alone be allowed to drive a bus. The only way that curve would cause an accident is if you're flying down Nelson, which it appears the bus driver was considering he took down a pole. I'd hate to see this driver on Snake Hill.

Filing a complaint does NOTHING. I filed a complaint a few months ago because a passenger on a bus I was on attacked another passenger for no reason and the driver let him stay on the bus. Everyone was terrified; passengers tried calling the cops but the bus driver wouldn't stay to let them arrest him. I filed a complaint but of course they did nothing.

If you don't like your parents invading your privacy, don't live in their house. It's really very simple. I remember being a teenager and complaining about my parents "invading my privacy", which really meant "finding evidence of me doing exactly what I wasn't allowed to do".

Well, just because he didn't explicitly say "I'm anti-gay" in his interview, that doesn't mean he's not. There has been evidence in the past that he is anti-gay. But those are his beliefs and he's entitled to them. I agree that a business shouldn't be run out of town because of the beliefs of the owner, particularly if he doesn't discriminate against his employees or customers. If the politicians had just stayed out of this, I don't think it would be a huge story. It also shows that these politicians may not understand the Constitution, because a government official telling a business that you can't locate in my town unless your statements conform with my beliefs does have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech.

However, private individuals criticizing your statements is not the same thing. If someone expresses themselves, and then people protest what that person said, they're not denying someone their freedom of speech. The protestors are just exercising their own freedoms of speech, free assembly, yada yada.

With regards to supporters of either type of marriage, the ultra-defensive attitude goes both ways. I find it funny that once someone supports the gay community, opponents claim that the supporter is opposed to "traditional families"...even if the supporter in question is straight, in a heterosexual marriage, with kids!!! Huh?!

I, as a liberal, really don't care what this guy has to say. His beliefs are his beliefs and that's fine. He doesn't seem to be interjecting them into his business, so who cares? That being said, I just want to make a few observations:

1. I bet if he were Muslim and said he and his company were defensive of his traditional Islamic beliefs, even if they didn't interfere with his business, everyone on here would be calling for his head and would thoroughly investigate his background to find ties to terrorist organizations.

2. Being pro-gay marriage doesn't mean you're opposed to the "traditional family"; it just means that you think the two should be allowed to coexist. Supporters of gay marriage are just saying "you have your beliefs and do your thing; I have my beliefs and I'll do mine". However, opponents of gay marriage are by their very nature exclusionary. They're denying someone the same rights they have. That's why people get upset. It's not a simple difference of opinion.

3. I will never understand why people pick and choose which Christian tenets they'll believe and which they'll discard. People will defend this man for being opposed to gay marriage, but will ignore the fact that he's also clearly against divorce. People will protest the state marrying a gay couple, but not for marrying a heterosexual couple that can't consumate due to an accident or whatnot, even though their marriage is also prohibited by the Church. They will protest outside of an abortion clinic, but not outside of a fertility clinic, even though IVF is considered an abomination, immoral, etc. I'd like to see Mr. Leddy and the other commenters on this site defend the Church for firing a married Catholic teacher for having IVF as they did earlier this year.

@jpaz - They are removing the old signs. The picture silive used is somewhat misleading. The smaller signs are the normal street signs on the pole. The larger sign in the picture is one that hangs over the intersection by the stoplight. I suppose they used that photo to show the differences in the fonts. But the older signs are being taken down.

As someone who shopped in that store quite a bit because I used to live in the area, I can tell you that the store's closure can be attributed to forces that have been in the works for years. Let's put politics aside and analyze this. They've been in business for 25 years. Think of how much this country, the economy, the Island, and technology have changed in that time! It is a gift shop selling candles, picture frames, Irish trinkets, Vera Bradley-type bags, etc.

1. The Island's Irish population is shrinking, which causes less of a demand for Irish goods.

2. Most of the gifts they sell are more appealing to older people. That's who I generally shopped for there. They sell a lot of religious figurines like angels and stuff. The Island's religious demographics are changing, and even the Christians here are less devout. So, again, that's less of a demand.

3. Based solely on anecdotal evidence, I've noticed a trend away from getting people a bunch of small gifts for Christmas or birthdays but towards getting one big gift, whether it be a Kindle, iPad, smartphone, expensive pocketbook, etc. Younger people want gifts like that, not candles or cow figurines.

4. They sold a lot of wedding-related stuff. If I waited until the last minute to buy something for a bridal shower and nothing interesting was left on the registry, I'd buy some wedding stuff there. But for the most part, people register for wedding picture frames and whatnot from big stores, where you can access the registry online and buy a gift without leaving your house.

5. They sold items at a higher price compared to big box stores and especially online stores. It's unfair that they can't get equitable prices from distributors, but that's been the case for decades.

Yes, some people are still out of work or are struggling financially, but there are still a lot of successful small businesses on this Island. When I go to Beso on a TUESDAY and have to wait for a table, don't tell me that small businesses can't succeed here! But you have to offer something that nobody else has or offer the best price on products that are in demand. As some commenters pointed out, when you open a business you take a RISK. Even if you're very successful at one point, it is not guaranteed that you will be in business forever. You have a responsibility to keep up with the times, trends, surroundings, etc. Even if you do that, it's still not guaranteed that advancements in technology won't put you out of business.

"How do you know the fact he was using a high capacity magazine didn't cause his gun to jam?"
Um, because if using a high capacity magazine alone caused a high capacity gun to jam, they wouldn't make them. Just a guess. The only reason a person buys a gun that can squeeze off 60 rounds per minute is if they're looking to shoot a lot of things a lot of times in the shortest amount of time possible. Why would a regular civilian need to do that? And your point about the first responders not being able to arrive fast enough is exactly WHY we need to limit high capacity weapons. Anyone who uses a high capacity weapon like that is a coward because they just want to kill others or animals without giving their opponent a fair shot at either fighting back or getting away.

Ok, and? So because other methods exist to kill a ton of people, we should allow people to have guns that kill only a slightly lesser number of people? What kind of a rebuttal is that?

Not sure if you saw the Post, but apparently he rigged his apartment because he wanted that to go off before he began his massacre at the theater in an attempt to distract cops, which would have allowed him more time to shoot people. He wanted to kill everyone in that theater, and might have been able to if his assault weapon hadn't jammed. I'm sure he would've loved to shoot people at his apartment too, but he couldn't be in two places at once.

It is disgusting to me that some people continue to defend unlimited access to guns, including automatic weapons, and their argument is always the same: "if someone else had a gun, they could've taken out the shooter". I just want to point out another movie-goer having a gun would have done nothing in this case because the shooter was covered head to toe in bulletproof body armor. Not to mention that he had an automatic weapon, putting him at a significant advantage against anyone with a handheld firearm. He would've shot anyone aiming at him before they even got a shot off. And finally, he purposely filled the room with smoke, so it would've been completely irresponsible for another shooter to just fire blindly into the haze. I also want to pose a question to gun advocates: with gun laws so lax right now, don't you think that if people wanted a gun they would've bought one? There's a reason nobody in that theater seemed to be carrying: they don't want to! So what are we supposed to do? Force people to carry guns?

For the record, I actually support people being allowed to purchase guns. I support people having them in their homes in order to protect against robbers and whatnot. But I also support mandatory waiting periods, background checks, and even think people should only get a license after completing maybe a 20 hour course on responsible gun ownership and usage. There's also no reason for anyone to have an automatic assault weapon. Many people in the NRA are not in favor of assault weapons either. A lot of them are hunters and realize that there's not much "sport" in being able to fire 50-60 rounds a minute at an animal.

I agree that we are never going to stop someone bent on killing others like this. With all the planning that went into this massacre, it seems obvious he would've gone through with it with or without an assualt weapon. He still would've killed people, but at least it would've been less than the figure we're looking at now.

I think it's a good thing the cops didn't shoot him. If they had, they wouldn't have known his apartment contained explosives - he told them it was, one of the only things he's said to them so far (reportedly, anyway). If he hadn't told them that, they would've gone in there blindly, set off the booby traps, and possibly killed more people. He was probably counting on them doing that anyway. What a psycho. Honestly, you can just look at his eyes and see he's nuts.